<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: mutt claiming that gpg signatures aren't verified



G'day Christoph,

I've had some coffee now, so I should be slightly more civil...  ;-)

* Christoph Berg <cb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [031024 16:35]:
> >  1) Look at my headers, I use the X-Request-PGP header.
> 
> I should have had a look at that header before complaining, but I've
> always felt like these being redudant, as there are keyservers...

Indeed.  However I think the advantage of one of these is that you can
put any type of URL, i.e. not just http, but finger, or whatever...


> I've never had problems with the pgp.net servers, but as every network
> and even servers in the same network seem to use different software, it
> is hard to track which entity really sucks.

Yeah.  Not sure how to get around that...

> >  3) It's a subkey.  The old keyservers don't search on subkeys, but
> >     AFAIK subkeys are allowed within the standard, so I'm going to
> >     keep using them.
> 
> No problem with that.

Yeah, I was a slight bit zealous there.  Sorry.


> Looks like I have to dig into keyserver stuff a little...

Warning, there be dragons there!



S.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature